
-F^ 



F 685 
.B781 
Copy 1 



ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



HON. WILLIAM W. gOYCE, 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 25, 1858, 
On the admission of Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution. 



The House being in the Committee nf t!ic Whole on ll'.c 
state of the Union — 

Mr. BOYCEsaid: 

Mr. Chairman-: Thesection.il agitation iaupon 
us again. In vain we seek to get rid of it, in j 
vain we endeavor to banish it from these Halls, ] 
and transfer it, under the Constitution, to the j 
people of the Territories, or to the jvidiciary. It 
still returns upon us. It has taken various forms 
in the diri'erent stages of our history. At one 
time it is the acquisition of Louisiana, then the 
Missouri question; at another, the right of peti- 
tion: agaiii, it is the annexation of Texas; then 
it reappears after a brief space, as the Wilmot 
proviso; changing its form, it now comes before 
us as Kansas. But in all its different aspects it 
is the same principle of sectional antagonism. It 
flows on through the different periods of our his- 
tory, a dark and gloomy current, drawing its 
sources from the fountains of bitterness, and 
threatening in its accumulating floods ultimately 
to submerge the Republic. 

The admission of Kansas under the Lecomp- 
ton constitution has been so elaborately discussed 
that I do not propose to go over this ground in 
detail. I shrJl content myself with alluding to 
some of the questions raised in the discussion, 
and a consideration of the sectional controversy 
in its more genera! bearings. A good deal has 
been said as to the necessity of a submission of 
the Lecompton constitution to a popular vote. 

As to the expediency of a submission of the 
constitution to a popular vote in the case of the 
Lecompton constitution, T have nothing to say; 
that was a question for the convention alone to 
determine. The only question, in this connec- 
tion, 1 propose to consider, is the necessity of 
such submission. Is it neces.sary to submit a 
constitution to a popular vote to give it validity r ; 
I think not. I admit that no constitution can have j 
vitality but from the assent of the people; and if j 
n.s\ibmission to popular vote were the only mode j 
by which the people could express their assent, j 
Uien such eubmission would be indispensable. I 



But is thi.s the case ? Certainly not. The people 
may express their assent in advance, by confer- 
ring upon their delegates the power to make the 
constitution. Empowering others to make the 
constitution for them, is agreeing in advance to 
be bound by the action of those others, and thus 
in advance giving their assent to the constitution. 
There are several modes by which the people 
might give their assent to a constitution. They 
might meet in mass meeting, and make their con- 
stitmion, clause by clause. This would come 
nearest, perhaps, to actually making their own 
constitution; but there are so many practical ob- 
jections to this mode, that it will find, perhaps, 
few advocates; though, in the progress of iht- 
democratic mania, even this mode may come to 
be insisted on evijntually as the only legilimatt; 
mode having due regard to popular sovereignty. 
Again: the people mightauthorize their delegates 
to form and establish their constitution for them: 
and this, perhaps, is the best mode of accom- 
plishing the purpose, if the delegates are judi- 
ciously chosen; for it is most likely that in thi« 
mode the constitution will be the embodiment of 
the highest wisdom of the community, acting in- 
dependent of popular errors or prejudice?. 

Yet further, Uic people might confer upon their 
delegates the power of forming the constitution, 
but deny them the power of giving it vitality, but 
reserve to themselves this sovereign right. At first 
view thi.s mode may appear desirable; but when 
we consider that the mere power to say yes or 
no upon an entire constitution in the lump, not 
permitting an e^fpression of opinion upon every 
clause, but only upon the aggregate, amounts to 
very little. If every man were allowed to vote 
upon every clause, it is likely that no constitution 
that could be devised would obtain a majority of 
votes for all its clauses, yet if the same constitu- 
tion were submitted to a popular vote it would in 
all probability, as a general rule, obtain a major- 
Hy of votes. Wiirri a constitution is submitted 
to popular vote, the question is not whether the 
majority favor all the provisions, the question is 
really whether it is better to have that constitu- 



f ^ 




iec3 



tion or no constitution. You may submit a sin- : 
elc question to popular vote u3 a means of really 
Iscertainin- ih.; public will, as for instance, "con- 
vention or no convention," or "bank or no bank, 
or "slavery or no slav.-rv," but the submission 
of a constitution, or frame of government, to a 
popular vote is a more apparent than real mode 
of ascertaining the popular will. 

As an illustration upon this point, I remember 
ronversiiK' with ajrentleman from Californiawho , 
voted in California when the constitution was sub- [ 
miiii'd to popular vote. He told me that he did 
not suppose half a dozen people in his section of ; 
the State had ever seen the constitution; i)ut the ; 
people voted for it, because they wanted a govern- ; 
ment, and would have voted for anything. ^Ve j 
all rrmenibera recent vote in this District on sub-*; 
mitting .-i code of laws to the people; we saw pa- j 
carded over the city, " Workingmen vote for the , 
Code, and eo to jail for debt." And under this, 
and similarai^peals, the Code, prepared with great , 
rare and ability, was voted down by an over-; 
whelinino- vote. The submission to popular vote , 
of a fram\' of government or code of laws is, in i 
,nv oi.inion, an illusion. A<rain, the people may 
establish a constitution, by giving the. power to ^ 
one man. Tins was the case in the master biates , 
of antinuity: i'l Lacedemon and Athens. Ljicur- ^ 
.rusgave institutions to Sj-arta, which made her i 
supreme in Greece. Solon performed a similar; 
crcat olilce for Athens. I do not, however, rec- , 
ommen.l this nu.de. It is not c-mgenial to the 
spirit of our institutions, and 1 remember what 1 
an impracticable constitution the celebrated John j 
' Locke formed for my own Siate in an early period , 
. of her colonial existence. But all these modes ot j 
formin- constitutions, which I have pointed out, | 
nre valfd. The only es.seiitial thing is the assent ol j 
the people; any way by which tiiat assent is sig- 
nified is sufficient. The idea, therefore, that there 
is no modeof establishing a constitution but by a , 
popular vote on the constitution, has no founda- 
tion, in my opinion, in reason. _ I 
This idea n.ceiv.'s no sanction from ilio mode | 
in whieh the Federal Government wascstablished. 
•Our ancestors desired to lay its found. tions as 
deep as possible in the sanction ot the biates; and 
wishie- to -ro behind the logislaiive autnorilies oi 
die .'sia'tes, to the very sources of power, they re- 
mtired the Constitution to be snlutiilted to "a con- 
tention of d.-lesrales chosen in each State by the 
ucoi.h' thereof." Such, too, was the practice of 
the States in the establishment of their own con- 
-Rlitutions, until a comparatively recent period. 
To nu.stion the validity of a State constittjtion, on j 
ihe [nound of non-sul^mission t;j ,) j.opular vote | 
is to disturb the foundation uoou uMiicli our polit- , 

. ical system rests. ! 

Anotherobiection,much maist-d on, IS the mode , 

in which thc'slavery question was submitted by. 
the Lecompton convention to the peopl.; ot Ivan- . 
Ras I5v tliat submission, the peo[)le were author- . 
ized to sar whether any more .slaves should be i 
brou-ht into luvnsas. They were not authorize^ 
■to confiscate the few already there, ^ow this is 
,W real cause of complaint. The convention did 
not submit the question of confiscation. To have 
done this would have been unjust in the extreme, 



for those who held slaves had taken them into the 
Territory under the sanction of the constitution; 



and suddenly, by a vote of a majority, to deprivi 
them of ihe# property, would have been rob!)ery 
under the forms of law— what may be appropri- 
ately termed higher-law larceny. 

The example set us by the northern States in 
their emancipation policy is most instructive in 
this regard. I have been at some pains to trace 
their le-^islalion on this subject. 

The first act for the abolition of slaves by a 
State Legislature was iiassed by Pennsylvania in 
1780, which was, as its title indicated, "An act 
for the -ralual abolilion of slavery. " It enacts: 

"That all ncrrions, as well negroes and niulauoes a« 
otlicis who shall be born within tl.H State, Iron, aiul after 
the passiiis ot this act, shull not bo dceint-d aiu coiisKlnrerf 
as s'Tvmu" lor life or slaves; aiui that all .erv.tu.Ie. lor Ul- 
or siaverv of children in coiiscquewee oi the slavery of their 
inothtrs.'i.i the case of all ohil.lren horn u.tihin Um State 
from and after the ,)«.•«;?«; oftkis act, as al...-o>:a..l, » 'a" b«, 
ari.l herel.) is, utterly taken away, cxling.u.^lied, and lorever 

'"''• That every negro, or mulatto child born within tlii- 
S'au- alter the nassiiiK of this act, (who wonhl in case this 
act had not been made, liave been born a servant for yc«r. 
or life, or a sl.ive,) shall be deemed to be, and sha 1 be, the 
servant of such person, or his assigns, who would he »nUi- 
tled to the service of sueh child, until sueli child sha.tatiaiu 
unto the age of lwi!ntyoi<,'lit year.-;." 

Now Pennsylvania did not, as we see by this 
act, proceed to an instantaneous confiscation, she 
only declared that the children of slave mothers 
born af'ter the passage of the act, would be dis- 
char"-cd from servitude on arriving at the age ot 
tweiuv-one years. Why did Pennsylvania act 
thus criscreetly ? It was not certainly because she 
counted the costs of a more rapid [)hilanthropy 
and wished to be cheaply benetol.-nt: such a con- 
siiuciion would be unworthy of her reputation, 
it must have been that she thought to have gone 
luriher would liave been inconsistent with the 
rights of property , or liable to some other equally 
grave objections. 

In Ma.ssachusetts slavery was not abolished by 
any special legislative act, but by the decision of 
the courts on the construction to be given to a 
clause in the constitution declaring that "all men 
are born free and equal." (Wincheiiden us. Hal- 
field, 4 Mass. R., 1:20.) 

Connecticut, m 1784, by her Legislature, enact- 
ed that — 

" No ne?ro or inuhiuo child th.t ,hnlL 'Jif 'f ^(J"f f''V 
of Wror/t, rs=4, be b.nn willnn Uns Stale, .-hall ue held u. 
s,.rvin.d.; lonzer titan nntil Ihcy <nrivc at the a^e e/ t.-e.t<y 
f,nc „ear,, noiwiihstandhei the l.iotlier or f\r;-'\\.o' •■".,' 
child wa:= held in servitu:!a at llie l.me ot its b.rth, biu 
such child, at the agJ alorcsaid, shall be lieu. 

No sudden emancioatioii, no confiscation— a 
very gradual transition. This Connecticut ht* 
explains its s[)irit in a recital-^ 

" Wh.-reas sound policy requires that ihc "'!"""""."» 
slavcrv should 1.0 oHeccd n.so.m as may be con>.stcnt w.ih 
lA^ri^hts ofindU-idaals and the public salety and welfare." 
Rhode [sland enacted that— 

^< \„ person born within this Utat.-, on and aaer the. [SI 
.lav of Mav \. I). I'.-l. siiill be denied or consideic » 
s"^v lu lii' or a .lave ; a;,d all servitude tor life, or sla- 
V rv t-ch I Ireii to be born as aforesaid, i" .•onscquelice or 
tl .-colntlnon of their mothers he, and ll... -■"« 'f^h"^'^ • 
tak.:n away, extinguished, and lorever abolisheU." 

Still prospective. 



3 



New Hiimpshire did not pass any express net 
of the Lf^ffislntuic for the aljolition of slaver)', but 
the abolition is intV'rred from a general clause in 
her constitution, in 179"2, similar to tiie one cited 
from liic constitution of Massachusetts. Slave 
interest was merely nominal in New Ilampsiiire. 

The constitution of Vermont, 1793, provides — 

"That all men are tioin equally free, and ln<lepeii(lent: 
llierelore, no mal« person linm in tliis country, or brought 
Iroin over sea, oujjlit to be liolden hy law, to serve any per- 
son as a servant, slave, or apprpntice, after he arrives to the 
uae of twenty one years, nor female in like ninnner, after 
■ilie arrives to tlic aze of eighteen years, unless tliey are 
bound bv tlu'ir own consent, after they arrive at such a^e, 
or bound by law. tor the payment of debts, damages, tines, 
costs, and the like." 

The number of slaves, infitiiiisimally small in 
Vermont, yi-t no sudden spoliation. 

New York provided, by legislative act, that all 
children born of slaves after tiie 4th of .Tuly, 1799. 
should be luhl hy the owner of the mothers of thi! 
same only, until they slioald attain to the age 
of twenty-ei;;ht years, if males, and if femalns, 
until to tlie aire of twenty-five years. No confis- 
cation; phiiantliropy, not very rampant, satisfied 
to wait a quarter of a century for fruition. 

New Jeisey, in 1804, passed an act for the 
<rradual aboliiinn of slavery similar to the Rhode 
Island law,(>xcepi " tliatie/(i/f male children born 
of slaves, aft(;r tlie 4th day of July, 1804, maybe 
retained as servants by the owners of their moth- 
ers, until ilic agi' of twenty-five years only, and 
feinale ciiil-dren in lik(! manner, until the age of 
twenty -one years. " Philanthropy still patient and 
listenint; lo reason. 

We thus see that in every instance where the 
northern States acted specially on the emancipa- 
tion of their slaves, thej' respected the existing 
rights of property. They looked to the future 
without damaging themselves in the present. The 
effect of their legislation v/ould seem to be more 
to release themselves from the presence of the 
African race than to exalt that race into freedom. 
F'.ir what was to prevent the owners of slaves thus 
advertised in advance from moving tluMr slaves to 
a warmer climate .' Nothing, that 1 ."^ee. And that 
the question of emancipation, in a large degree, 
took tliis form of solution, is, I think, obvious, 
from the comparatively small free negro popula- 
tion now in the emancipating northern States to 
that which siiould , in the natural course of events, 
be tliere. Eiiher emancipation has acted like a 
paralysison the .\frican race, or they were trans- 
ferred South before the em;uicipating proc(^ss took 
iiffect The imrthern emancipating States have 
proved, by their own action in reference to them- 
selves, that they repudiated the confiscating pro- 
cess. Why, then, should there be complaint that 
this process was not eslal)lished in Kansas.' Is 
theirpliilanthrof)y more vivid when it is to be ex- 
ercised at the expense of others? Commend me 
to this prud(!nt |)hilanlhropy, which counts the 
cost when it is to l)e operative atourown r'Xpense, 
Imt has a suljjime contempt for the expense when 
it is to come out of other people's pockets. 

I propose now, Mr. Chairman, to referas briefly 
as possibli- to some of the |M-aminent occasions 
on which the antagonism of a northern sectional 
jmrly has manifested itself in our history. The 



review is curious and instructive, and shows in 
the strongest light imaginable the indefensible 
views which have actuated this northern organ- 
ization. 

One of the first instances was the purchase of 
that western empire known as the Territory of 
Louisiana, embracing that immense region lying 
west of tlie Mississippi, from the great lakes to 
the Gulf of Mexico. The facts that this terriloniy 
embraced one bank of the Mississippi thr^ghout 
its entire course; that, tor a long distance near its 
mouth, tlie Mississippi flowed entire through the 
Territory; the boundless extent of fertile land em- 
braced in it; its close proximiiy to the United 
Stales, as they then existed; that the numerous 
and great confluents of tlu; Mississippi were of 
eomparativt' little value without the absolute con- 
trol of the " Father of Waters," which passes be- 
ni;jfianlly and sublimi-ly across so many parallels 
of latitude; all rendered ill is acquisition not merely 
a desideratum, but a necessity. It is not going 
too far to siiy that the Ileyiubiic would have been 
distnembered if thisacquisition had notbeeii made. 
Yet, there was a sectional fiarty North whosi' hor- 
izon was so limited that they could not take in 
this iviighiy development of the Republic. The 
sublime flow of the great inland sea never stirred 
their hearts with emotion. If the question had 
depended solrly upon them, the Mississippi would 
now be washing the shores of the stranger. 

Another development of this noithern sectional 
party occurred in the acquisition of Florida. Flor- 
ida, from its local position, infested with hostile 
savages, who constantly harried our frontiers, in 
possession of a weakgovernineni unable to restrain 
these incursions, with an extended line of sea and 
gulf coast, along which passed so vast a portion 
of American commerce, was also necessary to the 
peace, the integrity, and the commerce of the Re- 
public. Yet there was still an opposition at the 
North to its acquisition. But the common sense of 
the Republic burst the obstacles some wished to 
interpose to its rightful developments. 

The next developmentof this northern sectional 
sentiment was on the admission of Missouri. 
Then it first attained its gi^'antic pro[>ortion. 
Three great questions of constitutional law were 
raised in the progress of this controversy: 

1. As to tlie power of Congress to restrict and 
abolish slavery in a State applying for admission. 

2. As to the power to prohibit slavery in a Ter- 
ritory. 

3. As to the right of a State to prohibit the in- 
gress of free negroes. 

The discussion commenced on the proposition 
of Mr. Tallmadge to limit the existence of slavery 
in the new State, by declaring all free who should 
be liorn in the Territory after its admission into 
the Union. Tiie amendment of Mr. Tallmadge 
was in these words: 

^^ ^ lid pro filled. U'liat the fiirlhcr introduction of slavery 
or inv(dUMtary M;rvliudi! In- prohibited, exeepi for the |iui>- 
ishiM'iit of erimes, whereof tlie party shall have liL-en I'ulljr 
eniivicied, anil that all cliildreii bnni within the said .State, 
alter the adini.ssioii thereof iiUo the I'nioii, shall b.: free at 
the a-je of tw<!iity five years." 

This aiTiendmentimplied the power of Congress 
to annex conditions upon the admission of a State 
derogatory to her equality as a member of a con- 



federacy of States, necessarily equal in all their 
rights. According to this principle, Missouri was 
to be shorn of an important portion of her sover- 
eign right to regulate ^er own institutions in her 
own way, while the other States of the Union 
possessi-d, unquestioned, this right. The result 
would have been, if Missouri had been admitted 
with this provision, that, as to a vital portion of 
her social policy, she was in a condition of infe- 
riority tft the other States. Illogical and untena- 
ble as this position was, it was ardently sustained 
by a dominant parly North, and the country was 
convulsed upon this unfoundcdassumplion. Now, 
bow does this question stand.' It is abandoned 
even at the North, 1 believe, except by a few 
fanatics. Upon this point Mr. Justice Campbell, 
in delivering his opinion in the Dred Scott case, 
mays: 

"The attempt coiisi>iefi of apropo.sal to excludn Missouri 
from ii place in tlu; tTnioii unless her people would adopt a 
constiluilon containiii;/; a pioliihitioii upon the sulijcct of 
slavery, uccoidiii!; to a prescription of C'ongre.ss. 'I he sen 
liment t.< noir f^eneral, if not universal, tliitt Con^rc^s had no 
tonstUulionril jioucr to impose the restriction. This was 
Iraiikly aduiiUtd at the bar, in tliccoursf of this argument." 

The case was argued for Dred Scott by Mr. 
Blair and Mr. G. V. Curtis, who cannot be sus- 
pected of any bias for the southern view of the 
question, in Groves vs. Slaughter, Mr. Justice 
McLean, who was strongly spoken of for the 
presidential nomination wliich Fremont received, 
Rays: 

'■ Till! Constitution of llio United States operates alike in 
all the States, and one Stau; has the s ime power over sla- 
very as every other !5ia!e." — Pollards Lessee vs. Hawaii, 
aHj"'.,212. 

The Supreme Court of the United States say: 
"The United Slates have no constiiuiional capacity to 
«',xcrcis(! tnmiieipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eniinent'do- 
inain. within the limits of a State, except illCaws whore 
it is delegated, and the court denies the faculty of the Ked 
eral Government to add to its power* by treaty or compact." 

Mr. Justice Campbell, in the Dred Scoit case, 
further i-ays: 

" 'I'liis elaim Jo impose a restriction upon the people of 
Missouri involved a (jenial of the constitutional relations 
between the peopli- of the States and (Congress, an<l alhrnnul 
a concurrent ri^hl for the latter with their people to consli 
tute l!ic social and political system ol' the new States. A 
succe-^slnl inaintenanceof this claim would have altered the 
basis of the Conslilution ; the new States would have be- 
eonie members of a Union defined in pan by the ('onstiiu- 
lioii, ami in part by Co; grcss; they would not have been 
admitted to ^ this' Union; their sovereignty would have 
t>een restricted by Ccnigress as well as the Consiiiution." 

Clearly ujion this first question raised ujion the 
admi.ssion cif Missouri, the South were in ihe right, 
and the northern sectional parly in the wrong. 

As regards the second question, the power of 
Congress to prohibit slavery iji the Territories: 
this power is pertinaciously adhered to by the 
northern si^ctional p;trty, they refuse to be con- 
vinced, though the argument against it is ovcr- 
wheliuiiiiT- They derive this power from that 
clause of the Constitution which authorizes Con- 
gess " to dispose of, and make all needful rules 
and regulations respecting the territory or other 
property bi longing to the United Stales." From 
this they assume a governmental power over the 
territory. Hut this clause does not confer a gov- 
ernmental power; it only confers a proprietary 



power. This is obvious from the very terms 
of the clause, " territory or oilier property" evi- 
dently showing that the power conferred, in ref- 
erence to the territory, is as properly. Again: the 
power conferred by this clause is operative within 
a State where public land may be situated; thu.s 
showing that it is a proprietary power only. 
Again: if this power to make rules and regula- 
tions for the territory of the United States con- 
fers a governmental power, what was the use of 
the Constitution conferring upon Congress, in ex- 
press terms, governmental powers over the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, as ihisarnple power would have 
resulted without express provision.' The fact that 
the Constitution does confe-r expressly govern- 
mental powers on Congress, in reference to the 
District of Columbia, is conclusive that such pow- 
ers were not conferred as to the territory by the 
clause, authorizing " rules and regulations." 

Again:if theConstitution had intended to confer 
upon Congress governmental |.owerover the ter- 
ritory, it would, as it did in the case of the District 
of Columbia, have done so by apt words. Not 
having done so, the argument is strong that they 
did not intend to do so. But even if a govern- 
mental power could be deduced from this clause 
of the Constitution, itwould not authorize the pro- 
hibition of slavery in the territories by the Fed- 
eral Government, because such legislation would 
be inconsistent with theequaliiy which exists be- 
tween the States. The power to govern ihe Ter- 
ritories is most properly deducible from the power 
to admit new States. Congress having the power 
to admit new States, has, as an incident (o that 
[lower, the right to prepare a State for admission 
by establishing a territorial government; and in 
executing this derivative power, Contrress has no 
right todiscriminatein theTerritories between the 
diOerent forms of property, but must respect all 
property recognized as pro|)erty by the Constitu- 
tion, which slave property is. Uut without going 
any further into the argument of this question, 
it is suflicient to say that it has recently come 
for decision before tht; Supreme Court of the Uni- 
ted States in the Dred Scott case, and the question 
has been decided adversely to the claim of the 
prohibitionists. The position taken tit all limes 
in our history by all parties at the North, until 
wilhinarecentperiod, was that the Sufueme Court 
was the final arbiter of the Constitution, and its 
decision was authoritative and binding. It would 
be supposed, therefore, that the claim of power 
to prohibit slavery would be abandoned afterthis 
decision. Without myself claiming such force in 
the decisions of the Supreme Court, I may say 
I rely on its decision in the Dred Scott case as a 
powerful indorsement of the rightfulness of the 
position taken by the South upon this question. 

The third question raised iti the Missouri con- 
troversy was as to the power of Missouri to pro- 
hibit the entrance of free negroes. This was re- 
sisted by the northern sectional parly as viola- 
tive of the Federal Constitution, on the ground 
that free negroes werecitizensof the United States. 
Never was a more unfounded pretension put for- 
ward by any party. The best argument on this 
point is a reference to the stiitus of the free negroes 
in the northern States. We find, on examination. 



■conclusive evidence that the free negro has always I 
been regarded and treated in the free States as of a 
•degraded class, and not admitted to citizenship, 
as will appear from the following summary of! 
tlieir legislation on the subject: 1 

Massachusetts, in 178(i, passed a law proiiibit- \ 
ing the marriage of white persons with any negro \ 
ormulatto — declaringallsuch marriages unlawful, j 
and the issue bastards. And in the revised code j 
of 1836, the same law is substantially rcenacted, j 
except that the penally is increased from fine to ! 
fine and imprisonment on the person joining the 
white and colored in marriage. Thus strongly 
did Massachusetts, as late even as 1836, manifest 
her sense of the inferiority of the African race. 
Again, bya law of Massachusetts, passed March 
6, 1788, revised in 1798 and in 1802, it is enacted: 

"Tiiat no person brjiiiir jm Ai"ric;ui, or nogro, othor tliaii 
a subject, ot' thi; Emperor of Moioeco, or a citizpn of ilu; 
Uiiileil Slates, to be'evidonced by a cenificate, he, shall 
tarry within this Commonwealth tor a longer time than two 
months ; it' he dops. tlie justices have power to order such 
persons to depart, &.c. And it" such person shall not de 
part within ten days. Sec, such person sliall be committed 
to the prison, or hoij:7c» of correction. And for this ofTi'nse, 
Stc, he sliall be whipped, &.c., and ordered again to depart 
In ten days ; and if he does not, tlio same process and pun 
ishment to be inflicted, and so tolic^ qiioties.'' 

This looks like a very strong demonstration of 
(he opinion of Massachusetts as to the inferiority 
of the Africa;) race, and their consequent non-cit- 
izenship, and her power and her determination to 
keep them from her soil. 

The constitution with which Indiana came into 
tire Union recognizes the inferior siattts of the free 
negro. 

Shortly after Indiana became a State, she passed 
the following law: 

"No free ne,'rro, mulatto, or Indian, shall be a witness, 
except in pli^as of the State against negroes, niulatlni^s, or 
Indians, or in civil cases where iu'sroes, mulaitocs. or In- 
dians alone shall be parties." 

They say, in the same law, that 

" Every person, other than a ne^ro, of vvliose grandfathers 
or graiidnioihers any one is, or shall have been, a neero, 
although all liis oiher progenitors, except that descending 
from a negro, shall have been white persons, shall bedeemcil 
a mulatto ; and so every person who shall have one fourth 
part or more of negro blood, shall, in like maimer, be deemed 
a. mulatto. ■■ 

This looks very much as if the people of Indi- 
ana did not think the African race as worthy of 
equality with themselves. 

In Connecticut we find similar legislation, rec- 
ognizins; the inferiority of the African race, and 
their want of tiie s^aiits of citizenship. Hy an act 
of 1784, it is provided, that if any free negro 
shall travel without a pass, and shall be stopped, 
seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges aris- 
ing thereby. Again: in 18.33 Connecticut passed 
another law, which made it penal to set up any 
«chool in the State for the instruction of persons 
of the African race not inhabitants of the State, 
or to instruct or teach in any such school, or 
board any such person for such purpose, without 
the previous consent of the civil authorities. 

Tlie constitutionality of this law was attacked 
in the courts of Connecticut, in the case of Pru- 
dence Crandall, on thegrounti that the persons in- 
structed, though of the African race, were never- 



theless citizens of the United States, and therefore 
entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens. 
Chief Justice Claggiit overruled this defense, on 
the ground that free negroes were not citizens of 
a State within the meaning of the Constitution 
of the United Slates. The constitution of Con- 
necticut of 1818, it should also be observed, pro- 
vided " that every white male citizen shall be 
an elector." So much for Comiecticut. 

By the New Hampshire code, passed in 1815, 
no person was permitted to bo enrolled in the mil- 
itia but free white citizens; and the same provision 
is retjnacted in 1855. The negro is not thought 
wortiiy to stop a bullet in battle. The defense of 
the country is left to the citizens; the free negro is 
not considered in that class. 

In Rhode Island, by act of 1822, renewed in 
1844, marriage is prohibited between whites and 
mulattoes. By another act it is provided that, if 
a free negro keep a disorderly house, or entertain 
persons at unseasonable hours, his house may be 
broken open, and he bound out to service for two 
years; that is, made a slave of for two years. 
Again, it is provided that no white person ormu- 
latto keeping house, shall entertain any mulatto 
or slave. Again, any Indian, mulatto, or negro 
servant or slave, absintat night after nine o'clock 
to be lodged in jail until morning, then taken 
before a magistrate, who may cause them to be 
wiiipped. This is very inconsistent with the idea 
of full citizenship. 

Vermont, by law of 1797, enacted that '• every 
free, able-bodied, white male citizen, above the 
age of twenty-one shall be enrolled in the militia." 
This looks very much like counting the free ne- 
groes out of the class of citizens. 

In New York, Ohio, and Illinois, legislation 
may likewise be found establishing the inferior 
status of the free negro. 

The distinction between the African race and 
the white race has been frequently recognized by 
the legislative departments of the Federal Govern- 
ment from the earliest periods of our history, as 
by restricting the right of naturalizing aliens to 
the white race, by enrolling only wliitc citizens in 
the militia. A very pointed act upon the subject 
was passed by Congress in 1813, as follows: 

" That from and after the termination of the war in which 
the United States are now engaged with Great Hritain, it 
shall not be lawl'ul to employ on hoard of any f)al)licor pri- 
vate vessels of the linited States, any person or persons es- 
c<!pt citizens of the United States, or pn-notis of color, na- 
tives of tlie United States.'^ 

Congress by this act expressly negativing the 
idea that persons of color were citizens. 

Mr. Wirt, as Attorney General, in 1821, also 
gave an opinion denying the citizenship of fre« 
negroes. 

This question of the status of the free negro caroa 
before the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case; 
and it was decided that free negroes were not cit- 
izens of the United Slates. 

The next subject of agitation by this north- 
ern sectional party was the right of petition; this 
was made the pretext for a wide spread agita- 
tion. 

The next question was the admission of Texa.i. 
This great measure of general good was violently 



6 



opposed by the same northern fipctioiial party. I 
shall noicnl;irt:;o upon the ad vanta;;f:s to the whole 
country, North as well as South, by this acquisi- 
tion. 

The next agitation was produced by the efforts 
of this p(M-sisioiit northern sectional party to 
apply tlie Wilimit proviso to tlie territory ac- 
quired from Mexico. The discussion.'^ upon this 
subject, and their rcpusriance to enforcing the 
provisions of the Constitution in reference to fu- 
gitive slaves, and lii^'ir drsiie to interfere with 
slavery in the District of Columbia, are so recent 
that it is not necessary to do more tliun to allude 
to them. 

The agitation temporarily allayed by the legis- 
lation of IS.'JO, was revived with increased inten- 
sity by the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska 
bill, repealing the Missouri restriction. And we 
are now in the closing chapter of this agitation. 

From the summary I have taken of the various 
phases of the northern sectional agitation, several 
reflections will readily suggest themselves. 

1. That in the various forms this agitation has 
taken, the South has uniformly contended for 
nothing more than iu.>5tice, equality, and consti- 
tutional right, and tliat her policy in regard to the 
great quesiimis involved has been wise, and in 
every sense unexceptionable. 

2. Tiiat northern sectional agitation is unjust, 
unconstitutional, clironic; not accidental, but per- 
manent. 

1 ad vance to another view of the subject. What 
is the purpose of this northern socticnial party.' 
Its great leading idea is power. It desires to ob- 
tain possession of the Government, and wield the 
Government exclusively for its own benefit. To 
accomjilish this purpose, its instruirientality is 
liate — hale first, second, and all the time — hate 
of the South by the North. To verify this asser- 
tion, we have only to read the productions of its 
teeming fress, the speechcsof its Representatives 
here, and observe its legislative and individual 
acts. It wishes to make the North hate the South, 
and to attain this result it deyins to make the 
South hale the North, that the gulf of alienation 
may be more profound. I do not consider that 
this party is primarily actuated by sympathy for 
the slave. That (lag is held out to conciliate a 

Rortion of the North. There is a portion of the 
forth, a minority, 1 think in every State, who 
really sympathize with the slave. To conciliate 
this class, the northern sectional party assumes 
the championship of the cause of the slave. The 
emancipation crusade jiroper, is, I think, weaker 
now than at any period within the last quarter of 
a century; and slavery, as an institution, stands 
upon atronser ground now in a moral and politico- 
economical point of viev/, than it has done at any 
lime since 1830. After the great wars of Napo- 
leon were ended, the public mind of Europe, agi- 
tated by a st'ries of great events, could notatoncc 
subside into calmness. It needed the stimulus of 
some agiiaticni, and the want was supplied by the 
emancipation propagatida. England yielded to it 
between 1830 and lh40, and abolislud slavery in 
her West India possessions. This emancipation 
mania went upon three ideas. 

1. That slavery was wrong inforo conscmxUai. 



2. That emancipation would be better for the 
negroes. 

3. That emancipation would be better for the 
civilized world, as the enfranchised slaves would 
produce moie working as freemen. 

This last assumption was, 1 have no doubt, 
more eflicacious in producing emancipation than 
any other; for England, in common with the rest 
of the civilized woild, has always pursued her 
material interests without any squeamish regard 
to the rights of inferior races, as is illustrated on 
every page of history. The emancipationists 
might have bawled themselves hoarse in Exeter 
ITal lover the alleged wrongs of ilieAfriians, with- 
out making any impression on tiie p<diey of Eng- 
land, if they had not adroitly held up the lure of 
material advantage in connection with the move- 
ment. 

But the English emancipation act has led to 
consequences not fori-seen by its advocates. A 
more thorough investigation has been given to the 
moral aspect of the (piestion. The result has 
been ttiat, on the grounds of revealed ri'lijiion and 
natural reason, slavery, humanely adminislefed, 
is founded on impregnal)le right. Instead of free- 
dom being a benefit to the slaves, it has proved a 
curse. Upon this point the evidence from the ex- 
periment in the West indies has been overwhelm- 
ing, that the enfranchisi-d blacks are worse off now 
than in a stale of slavery. If my lime would per-' 
mit 1 could accujnulaie authorities on this point; 
but it will not. 1 can only in a general way refer 
to the facts as they have been developed on this 
point as sustaining my a-ssertion. If this is here- 
after controverted, 1 shall bring forward a maga- 
zine of proof upon tlie subject. 

But the idea that the U-vt: negro would be more 
productive working Air himself than for his mas- 
ter, has been, of all the assumptions, the most 
completely falsified. Space again does imt per- 
mit me to give the statistics on this poHif. They 
have been collected by Christie, an emancipation- 
ist, in liis work called " Ethiopia,'' a production 
of signal ability. His evidence is entitled to the 
more weight, as he is not of our camp. He con- 
cedes the failure of the West India emancipation 
scheme, but oilers anollier — the transfer of the 
bl-icks to Africa. 

The results of this West India emancipation 
have produced a profound impression on the pub- 
lic opinion of the world. We see this by various 
develo|)meiUs — in England, in the tone of the Lon- 
don Times; in France, by the recent action of 
Louis Napoleon. 

From this short review I consider myself au- 
thorized to make the assertion I have as to the 
present strength of the institution of slavery. 
Slavery is interwoven with the material interests 
of the civilized world. You cannot strike down 
slavery without paralyzing free society. Take 
one single product which we grow at the Soulh> 
dependent absolutel)' upon slavery — cotton. 
Abolish slavery, abolish the cotton luilture, and 
there is not a hamlet in the civilized world that 
will not feel the recoil of tlie blow. The cold 
blasts of your northern winters are arguments for 
slavery; from the oracles of God, which you can- 
not disregard without entailing inexpressible suf- 



ferii)g on all those who live by their daily toil. 
it ia not too much to say that civilization itself 
han"s upon threads of cotton. The productions 
of hot regions are necessary to the white race in 
the northern zones; these productions cannot be 
obtained without slavery. You Free-Soilers and 
Abolitionists of the North are the abettors of sla- 
very. Why do you use our cotton, our sugar, 
our rice? If you shudder, as some of you pre- 
tend to do, at the sin of slavery, why do you 
solace yourselves with the comforts an.d the lux- 
uries of slave labor? Give them up; ceti.sc to use 
the products of slave labor, and we shall believe 
in your sincerity, even if we are more convinced 
of your folly. It' not, then are you not slavery 
abettors, and is there not some little inconsistency 
in your professions and your practice? 

Tills northern sectional party cannot be blind 
to tiie evidences of the times. They cannot but 
see that emancipation is a delusion. I therefore 
feel authorized to assume as I have, that, in a gen- 
eral sense, they are not agitating' in tlio interest 
of the slave. Tliey are a;;itatin,;j^ for sectional 
power. The truth sometimes develops itself in- 
voluntarily; and so it was recently in the mem- 
orable declaration of yourgreat leader, [Mr. Sew- 
ard,] that " thj battle was over and won;" that 
the INTorth had now a majority of free States, and 
would soon have an excess of four free States. 
This wns a pregnant declaration; it is true, too. 
The equilibriu:n of the two sections is at an end. 
The North have a majority in every department 
of the Government except the judiciary. In the 
House of Representatives the majority now is 
large; by the next census in 1861), the North will 
have a vastly increased pr^.'ponderance, amount- 
ing to nearly two thirds, lii the Senate they will 
Rooti have a majority of eiglit votes. In the elec- 
toral college they v.'ill have also a large majoritjV 

in this aspect of the case two great questions 
suggest themselves to the South: 

I Will this northern sectional pariy get pos- 
session of the Governmeni? 

2. What policy will they pursue if in power? 

In reference to the lirst, t tliink the signs of the 
limes imply that this northern sectional party may 
get possession of the Government. When we see 
iiow they have increased in the last few years; 



when we reflect upon their persistent efforts to 
make the North hate the South, how alluring, 
power is to States, the plausible pretense that they 
represent exclusively northern interests, their 
pandering to the anti-slavery sentiment, the con- 
viction is forced upon us, "however reluctantly, 
that they may evcnt-jally take possession of iho 
Government. 

Then the question comes up, what policy will 
they pursue? It is obvious that it will be legis- 
lation exclusively for what they may cojisider sec- 
tional intererts; "distributing office, patronage, and 
station, among themselves and such few adherents 
as they may have South— a process of.onstantagi- 
tation and impinging upon southern rights, so 
that the Federal Government will be the exponent 
of their ideas and their hate. To comfdete the 
programme of their policy, they will seize the 
judiciary, and from that battery discharge their 
envenomed arrows upon us. Their leader [Mr. 
Seward] hasalrendy this session declared that the 
Supreme Court must be remodeled in the interests 
of "humanity." Their mode of remodeling courts 
is seen in tlie late expulsion of Judge Loring from 
the bench in Massachusetts. 

I have not language strong enough to express 
my sense of the calamities and^h'gradaiion which 
would fall upon the South l.y acquiescet)ce under 
the domination of this nonhern sectional party. 
Their i)ossession of power would be tlie installa- 
tion of hate. 'J'heSoutli could notacquiesce in auch 
domination without niidicating her present and 
her future. 1 urn a conservative by education, by 
alllheinstinctsof my nature. 1 have be!,'n,and am, 
in good faith, sincendy desirous of preserving the 
existing Government, if its preservation be possi- 
ble, compaiihie '.vith the safety and equality of tho 
South. But if the North should — a result I ar- 
dently hope tnay never take place — put the Fed- 
eral Government in the hands of this party whose 
capital is hate of the South, then I .shall think 
and proclaim to iny countrymen of the South that 
we liave noihiisg more to expect from the justice 
of our northern brethren; and that ihe time has 
come for us to lake our destinies into our own 
hands. If tlic South acts, I shall rejoice; if shedoes 
not, I shall retire to my farm, and lament that we of 
the South have so far fallen from our high estate 



Printed a! ihn Conjressionsil (Ilobe office. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 087 995 6 



